Check Andrew Sullivan, who is complaining that people who oppose abandoning Iraq are focusing on Beachamp because they can't refute the underlying reality that Iraq is a disaster. IOW, the narrative that Iraq is lost is true regardless of the lies told by those peddling it.

the exclusive story that I just heard was he cracked quite quickly when they threatened to make him watch a loop of famous Joe Biden speeches on the Senate floor. That would make a man mountain tremble.

I don't remember who first broached this (Mickey Kaus?) but the idea was that as 'traditional' circulation dropped, editors desperate to save their jobs and status would increasingly cater their content to those seeking validation of preconceived notions. They would no longer (if they ever did) seek to provide neutral unbiased information to an audience eager for such information, but would instead feed red meat to the animals... and the editors would figure that the animals wouldn't care if the red meat they were fed on Monday turned out to be a bit tainted on Friday.. that is, of course, if they ever accepted that the meat was in fact tainted.

Heh. Uncle Jimbo over at Blackfive does a well-deserved Church Lady dance with his Beauchamp sinks TNR piece. Probably the critical bit of debunking, though, was when J.D. Johannes correctly nailed his unit down to the company level, and talked to his unit PAO. It may have unraveled sooner or later anyway, but that certainly provided a catalyst.

Latest from TNR:
"We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."
--The Editors

Interestingly enough, that update from TNR doesn't look to add any new information. Unless I'm mistaken, they're stating what they've already done to date. Nothing in that statement leads me to believe that they have disputed any of the latest information.

7/26, 1:40PM the army was the midst of a formal investigation, via an email posted by Michael Goldfarb at WS. "In the midst of" implies a certain amount of time had already ellapsed in the investigation itself.

We don't know when the coming out piece was actually written and sent by Beachamp, and when it was received by TNR. It is most likely to have occured before the investigation began, since we have been told that Beachamp was cut off from outside communication during the investigation.

Still, we find out 7 hours after the coming out piece that there is an investigation, and we learn, if only be an anonymous source, not yet officially confirmed that Beauchamp recanted on the first day of the investigation.

I Question The Timing.

-------------
*glad I read the Clarice comment before hitting post. It really is an anonymous source, not a named official.

Today in the Opinion Journal, former KGB intelligence officer Ion Mihai Pacepa explained the propaganda tactics of the communists during the Cold War.
Here is a bit of what Pacepa had to say about the Soviet's propaganda campaign in the West:<

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam...

From where I sit, I still see people are FURIOUS with the Bonkeys for running the gigolo in 2004!

Since the take-down of Buttchump is another success for the Internet. It shows how, when people have a forum, they can come forward with information to butt the crap that comes out of the MSM.

The best guess is that Franklin Foer learned NOTHING from the Dan Rather "episode."

And, the only place where I'm curious, ahead, to look and notice anything, will be "how thick will the Christmas issue of TNR be?

Is it possible advertisers of glamorous goods, are aware that Conservatives wouldn't be amused to see "stuff to buy" in the pages of TNR? What about the Leftists? What if they get angry? Could it be they'd be willing to beat up advertisers?

You think marketeers don't think about things like that?

It's impressive, the things you've learned from the Net about buttchump.

He was never first class, when TNR was printing that he was.

He probably saw the "skull games," while he was in Germany. Since there was some front page news of American troops locating an old grave yard from WW2. Only Buttchump "forgot" to attribute.

Sames goes for the "burnt lady." In fiction, BRAD THOR used this "device." FICTION. And, yet, Buttchump did not attribute.

Perhaps, he read the fiction in Kuwait?

As to the current line, that the editors of TNR called a military person named LAMB, who could not confirm any information about Buttchump, doesn't change the facts. Goldfarb's listed the Army personnel who have confirmed "Scott Thomas' stories" as being FALSE. Why didn't they check with them?

IF the old media just thinks it's a shell game. And, we have to find the pea hiding under the rock; they lose.

We already know the truth. And, Franklin Foer seems to think he can avoid it.

In any event, NO PULITZER FOR THEM! The Putz Prize, instead. And, good luck.

Hmm. On the first day of the investigation, Beauchamp signs a sworn statement recanting his story, but the Army goes ahead and interviews everybody in the platoon, trying to corroborate his story anyway? When the Army's spokesman announces the end of the investigation, he doesn't mention that Beauchamp recanted? When specifically asked about it, he says he doesn't know anything about a recantation?

He recanted on the first day HE was investigated, that is not to say that his command had not already talked to the others in his unit first.

There is the recantation and there is the investigation which interviewed everyone in Beauchamp’s unit and no one recalled the things he wrote about, plus we have statements and here and here and here from a variety of PAOs making official statements denying the incidents Scott Beauchamp wrote about.

Absolutely no one would ever be surprised by what you would guess conerning the matter.

When he met with the investigators, Pvt Beauchamp faced a dilemma with only one tenable solution. If he lied he would need an accomplice to corroborate the lie and that accomplice would have to be willing to commit a crime that carried jail time plus a Dishonorable Discharge as a penalty. If his accomplice failed to corroborate, Pvt Beauchamp faced the same penalty.

None of the alledged incidents nor the aggregate total of the alledged incidents carried penalties heavier than an Article 15. Lying to investigators is in a whole 'nother weight class.

I could draw it in heavy crayon on a whole roll of butcher paper and it wouldn't change what you call a mind but that really is the way it works - and worked.

Hmm. On the first day of the investigation, Beauchamp signs a sworn statement recanting his story, but the Army goes ahead and interviews everybody in the platoon, trying to corroborate his story anyway?

Yep. That's exactly how I'd do it if I were ordered to do an investigation. I'd also look for any corroborating or contradictory evidence from folks who weren't in the unit but might have knowledge (e.g., support personnel). And the spokesman probably doesn't know details of the investigation, nor would he be allowed to divulge them if he did. None of that contradicts Goldfarb's story.

Has the Weekly Standard seen said sworn statement?

Since Goldfarb never said they did, I'd suspect the answer is "no." But I'm not sure it matters. Long and short of it is that Goldfarb has now bet his career and credibility (see the update linked) on this . . . and Foer has been "all in" for a week or so. Can't see why Goldfarb would call unless he had the cards.

I cut off my own comment, it should include Major Lamb's statement to an inquiry by Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee:

Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

Foer's claims that Lamb doesn't know anything about the WS claim of recantation, is being disingenuous. Lamb knows full well about whatever Beauchamp has done, but that isn't to say he knows who the anonymous source is or that he is willing to confirm info to TNR about that source.

It didn't take a recantation for most people knowledgeable about the military to spot this lying putz. You can't even say that he was honest about being a "soldier in Iraq," since it turns out that his lies started while he was still in Germany, and continued when he was in Kuwait, yet he wanted the reader to believe he'd lost his humanity because of these atrocities he witnessed and participated in in Iraq.

Essentially Beuchamp did what is called a Ratner on the organisation he worked in,very stupid if you want to outlast the prawn sandwich.

Of course those of TT's stamp wouldn't understand that the Beauchamp's comrades in his company,where trust is a matter of life and death,might feel utterly betrayed.Rather nasty having a political commissar reporting your every action to the party,but then again,probably par for the course for TT.

Liars say all sorts of false things. If Beauchamp signed a statement saying he lied, why should his word on the statement be trusted without corroboration? The choice in this sad affair has always been what crimes have been committed and by exactly who. Under exactly zero scenarios was Beauchamp innocent of any crimes. Let's say the melted lady thing was made up and the part about running over dogs but some nutbar actually did play around with human remains in some fashion, why wouldn't the investigation not want to find out?

So yes, the investigation went by the book, top to bottom and Beauchamp's statement meant very little to the scope and duration of the thing. And we should be glad of it no matter what our politics are.

The leftists seem to have this charming idea that when lied about the right has no right investigate or kick back. When the Bush administration investigated Joe Wilson's allegations they were perceived by the left as "punishing" Joe Wilson and "outing" his wife. If Joe Wilson was worried about his wife being "outed" he shouldn't have printned his op-ed. He shouldn't have brought her to anyone's attention. People who live in glass houses should know what happens when they throw stones. The truth is he knew what would happen and twisted the truth accordingly with the help of our dishonorable media.

The left will never understand the military. They think the military is made up of oppressors and murderers. Some patriotism, isn't this? The truth of the matter is that the military is a tight knit organization who polices it own. It would be a real donnybrook if only the judiciary was allowed to try the military which is what the left wants. A real mess. Well, the military are not oppressors and murders. They are made up of men and women who are hhonored to serve. They are all that stands between us and destruction. The left is stupid not to understand this. Instead, they try to tear down the military at every opportunity with their lies and celebration of each death. Beauchamp is an opportunist who was caught. No senator for life for him. Too bad the internet was not in existence when Kerry spouted his lies.

The left says "don't question our patriotism". Well, I question it. T think it is non-existant.

The leftists seem to have this charming idea that when lied about the right has no right investigate or kick back. When the Bush administration investigated Joe Wilson's allegations they were perceived by the left as "punishing" Joe Wilson and "outing" his wife.

Exactly. Franklin Foer even used the same word, 'smear' to describe The Weekly Standard's side of the story, as was (and still is) used to describe the Cheney-Libby refutation of Joe Wilson.

It's also the reason that people like Brad DeLong delete comments that disagree with them from their blogs. If you disagree with them, you're not playing fair.

"some nutbar actually did play around with human remains in some fashion,"

This part is true,but it was German troops in Afghanistan,Beauchamp probably got it from Der Spiegel.
The miserable little shit should have called his pieces,"From Behind the Lines".Odd thing is only in America,all left dictators would have had him shot.

The choice in this sad affair has always been what crimes have been committed and by exactly who.

Yes, but the bottom line on crimes is that there isn't much there. Far worse happens in war zones every day, often by accident or oversight. And whether some "Private Joker" engages in petty misbehavior is predominantly an issue for his NCOs.

The question is whether a [reputable?] US news outlet is ginning up enemy propaganda in the time tested VVAW "Winter Soldier" mode. And whaddya know . . . the gent that wrote the definitive piece on Kerry's shennanigans, Mack Owens, gives us a good overview of this affair as well, in Stephen Glass Meets the Winter Soldiers:

Nonetheless, the "Diarist's" stories remind me of the sort of shocking and outrageous statements young men like to tell to credulous listeners. As the late Harry Summers, a veteran of two wars once remarked, such stories are intended to have the same impact as the sight of two Hell's Angels French-kissing in front of a group of bystanders: shock and awe. They also remind me of the predisposition of the American press to believe the worst about American soldiers, a predisposition that dates to the Vietnam War.

Oooh, nasty visual. At any rate, the villains in this piece aren't soldiers in the field, even if they are fabulists making up the juicy bits. It's the editors and publishers who provide a willing market for this sort of thing, either knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the facts. And are using it to paint a Kerryesque word-picture they ought to know is false.

I simply do not believe that there is anything even resembling integrity at TNR and probably hasn't been for a long time. Besides the Editor, Foer, and his employee Elspeth who is the wife of Beauchamp, Jason Zengerle and Jonathan Chait (to name two) have also done what they could to obfuscate and try their hands at smoke and mirrors.

Dean Barnett is having one of his "Dead Pools" - guessing the date of Foer's departure/resignation/termination. I have become very cynical. I do not think anything at all is going to happen to Foer (at least not from his bosses). They are all diseased liberals to the core and any lie is justified in their world.

I do like to read Marty Peretz's "The Spine," and have had some respect for his views. No more. Alas, no more.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp - a no talent, scumbag - has cast a shadow over the whole TNR crew and they all come out looking really, really bad.

"The National Review quoted a Defense Department news release: "Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington. There is no record of any service in Vietnam, but since he was an air crew member he could have been in Vietnam for brief periods during cargo loading, unloading operations or for crew rest purposes. His highest grade held was Staff Sergeant E-5."

Hubbard was registered with the VA with a service-connected disability rating of 60 per cent."

The argument about Hubbard, is that he claimed he had been based at Tachikawa
SFB, in Japan; and that was a convenient
TDY for those who wanted to obscure a
support role in Vietnma. It's not unlike
Beauchamp's dodge about Camp Buehring when
everyone was scouring Camp Falcon. Not surprising that part fell through; as did
Amarita Barnes, the raped army Iraq war
vet, that hadn't been in Iraq; Jesse MacBeth, who hadn't been in the army, Micah Wright, the alleged Panama vet; Marcos Moulitsas, the Persian Gulf War vet that wasn't.

"They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. . . . We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?"

they aren't playing Texas Holdem as that is a table stakes game. I see this as a straight poker match. Weekly Standard just calmly answer the raise of TNR with a see and raise you. Unfortunately, I dont think TNR has anything in their pockets to meet the raise. Should have stuck to their story about being on vacation.

"They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. . . . We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?"

they aren't playing Texas Holdem as that is a table stakes game. I see this as a straight poker match. Weekly Standard just calmly answer the raise of TNR with a see and raise you. Unfortunately, I dont think TNR has anything in their pockets to meet the raise. Should have stuck to their story about being on vacation.

Buttchump's first lie was to claim he was a PFC. Wasn't first class. Had been demoted. It shows on his pay records. He left this information off his diary entries.

When in Germany, there was a front page military article about American soldiers discovering an old WW2 grave yard. There was a front page photo of a soldier olding up an old skull. (No yarmulkas. That's the detail "added" by Buttchump.) But you get the idea? He was lifting stories from stories he already saw.

The Burnt lady's face by IED: Here, you'd have to read fiction. BRAD THOR's fiction. He used this as a device in one of his stories. Buttchump used this without attribution. Perhaps he read Brad Thor's fiction while in Kuwait, waiting to move into IRAK?

Franklin Foer is a piece of work, if his hands are on today's TNR piece that they still can't confirm Buttchump has admitted to lying. Since TNR is quoting LAMB.

You get to compare what Goldfarb wrote. Where Lamb acknowledges that Buttchump has already signed the "affy-davy" ... admitting to lying.

The "smidgen of truth?" Buttchump's a male. Serving in Irak. And, among about 100 men JD JOHANSEN (sp?) identifies.

I actually think this idiot can still get another manuscript published. But he'd have to talk about how it feels to get one's private parts "stuck in a wringer."

The movie now playing is Saving Foer's Privates. Pvt For Life Beauchamp doesn't even rate a walk on from here on out.

While I like Gary's poker analogy, I think it's really been a journo duello mano a mano with Goldfarb still sitting on his charger, idly chopping the tops off weeds with his sword, and Foer now doing a poor imitation of the Black Knight.

If I were going to put a bid in on Dean Barnett's Foer Dead Pool, I'd go for 5PM Friday.

Well I have to give the left one thing. After 30 years of leftist media drivel they have finally made me understand how one could actually loathe a military man so much that you could actually consider spitting on him. That's what Foer and The New Republic were trying to accomplish lo these many years, but somehow I don't think they imagined Private Scott Thomas Beauchump would wind up being the troop worthy of the spittal.

OK guys. It might be useful to note where we really stand right now with respect to the Beauchump writings:

1. The army has announced that they concluded the charges by Beauchump are false as they were unable to corroberate any of them with other members of his platoon. It is difficult to tell exactly what allegations were investigated, but since US Army personnel speaking on attribution were willing to call the specific stories "urban legends", it is safe to say that all the stories were investigated. So, conclusion 1 -- the army has investigated Beauchump's stories. They probably have good reason to believe them false. One can't say that with 100% certainty because (i) there is a motive to cover up discreditable behavior here and (ii)the army did not release the report.

2. The New Republic claims to have done fact checking, and received statements from five comrades of Beauchump's which confrm the stories (except that one said to happen in Iraq happened in Kuwait). The statement itself is imprecise -- how many comrades conformed which stories? And the fact that there is one significant misstatement regarding the ugliest story of the lot is pretty serious. Reasonable conclusion -- the NR did the fact-checking as indicated, and are busily puting lipstick on a pig about what was said. You can possibly conclude that what we have here is a young blogger more interested in atmosphere than actual who what when where why, and what he described actualy happened in some form or other, maybe even in Iraq. You can also conclude there is no reason to believe the guy about anything, except that he watched MASH and some other anti-war movies and read Catch 22, and figured random surreal cruelty was the best thing to write to get that fame he was looking for. What you can't conclude -- reasonably -- is that everyhting Beauchump said was true. because even NR admits that it wasn't.

3. The future is likely this -- Beauchump will never write another word for NR. This will be noiced, but NR can explain that the Private second class is unable to write because his hands are stiff from peeling potatoes. (Or his modem has been taken for him. Or that he is being censored.) This too will fade.

4. People will continue to belive what they believe about this affair withut change, as there will be no more information forthcoming from either the army or NR. (I can't imagine the purported confession is going to turn up on Weekly Standard's website -- which is the only thing that will move things in any direction).

STB will confess to constructing an auto-composite, collecting urban ledgends and war rumors as tales told in the first person singular. TNR can claim there’s a grain of truth in the tales which show the "degradation of the human spirit caused by war". Just a minor glitch, an understandable mistake by an inexperienced correspondent.

I think the fact that Beau was married to a TNR staffer put the editors and writers who were fact checking in a more difficult spot. Both Beau and his wife will be canned along with Foes.
AM, Capt Ed has a cite to a more detailed analysis of the lies than your recounting and it is damning. (For example, TNR still refuses to name even one of the so-called"experts" whose word it claimed to rely on. And the contractor in Kuwait says flat out there was never such a wounded woma there--indeed, for liability purposes, anyone with such wounds would have been promptly shipped out of there.)

Its a lot simpler than that AM. the Army said in no uncertain terms the claims were "False". Not unproven or unlikely or anything equivocal.

TNR admits "error" which in itself tends to blow up its whole raison of printing the tale, but never has even admitted to its readers that the Army has closed an investigation and termed the claims "False."

And ludicrously, TNR demands of the Army proof, but fails to provide any of their own. Similarly, despite have a somewhat diificult time with fact checking in the past and apparently in future, wants reasonable people to believe its own anonymous sources but to totally disregard the anonymous source that the Weekly Standard has.

Well if anyone likes to bet on the pass line on this one, come on down. Want to ride with the shooter on this one? Smart money seems to be piling the chips on the Dont Pass line.

And the Army has a strong incentive at some point to make sure smears against it's personnel and its reputation are effectively refuted so I would not conclude that some more proof is not eventually released.

Of course the same guys retailing that " fire does not melt steel" and other wild conspiracy tales will not let a little thing like this stop them from seeing their own reality. The tale fit that reality and they are going to live in, by golly.

The only reasonable conclusion is this person if she existed was someone who had a prior disfiguring injury and returned to the area.

The only reasonable conclusion is the lady would have to be a non military contractor, since the services would very likely never let a person with such issues return to the area of operations, and in fact they would still be in medical corrections stateside from such an injury.

If TNR had been serious about fact checking before publishing it wouldn't have made any difference that Beauchamp was married to a TNR staffer. It appears that TNR's pre-publishing "fact checking" was more like: "Well, his wife works here & she vouched for him."

If TNR had done any other pre-publishing fact checking, would it really matter that Beauchamp is incommunicado? Shouldn't they already have all of the contact & source information they need?

Oh I hear ya. Though I've been known to make exceptions on the first one of the weekend. Ya know, you get home from the store and the beer warmed up a bit on the ride. The first one isn't ice cold, but you can't wait. You open the first one and then put two or three in the freezer.

Mythbusters, as always, is extremely handy in this regard. Forget the freezer. Grab a cooler, add ice, water, beer -- and salt. Oh, unless you're really in a hurry -- quoting Jamie: Jamie, "If you do have one and you're willing to spend maybe, you know, $30 on having your beer cooled now [by a fire extinguisher], then I guess you could do that"

1. Actually you're making an assumption that there are "five comrades of Beauchump's which confrm the stories". I believe if you look closely at the well parsed sentences by Foer you can find that there is nothing to eliminate the possibility that there is actually only one person confirming, but who is referred to by Foer on multiple occasions to make it seem like there are more people involved.

2. The potential punishment for this kind of behavior is really very minor. Hardly anything at all in most cases. I've known quite a few Marines who've gotten into rather more serious trouble who've escaped with equally minor punishments.

On the other hand lying to or deceiving military investigators is a *very* serious offense and isn't one that anybody in their right minds would risk. That way lies Leavenworth.

So the idea that Beauchamp would risk severe punishment to avoid minor punishment doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I can see why Goldfarb would call if he doesn't have the cards: he's a bad poker player. I myself called an all-in bet with pocket sixes the other night. 'Course I actually won the hand, so who knows.

But we know Goldfarb doesn't have the metaphorical cards because he doesn't have the one card that is at base of his story: the sworn statement. He doesn't have it, and he hasn't seen it(otherwise, he'd say so). The Army officially refused to confirm its existence, which would be odd, if they had one. They can't hide behind the "we don't reveal details of the investigation" dodge because they've already given details, notably that no one would corroborate Beauchamp's stories.

He also only has one source. TNR has many, who are either lying to TNR or the Army. Frankly, I don't see how anybody can jump all over this story about the recantation, yelling "aha, he's a liar!" It's an anonymous source, for chrissakes. Wait for the statement.

The Army officially refused to confirm its existence, which would be odd, if they had one. They can't hide behind the "we don't reveal details of the investigation" dodge because they've already given details, notably that no one would corroborate Beauchamp's stories.

Actually, the Army has indirectly confirmed that Beauchamp's sworn statement recanted the storoes in their formal statement. The Army stated that "no one" in Beauchamp's unit could confirm the stories. Beauchamp is a member of his unit, therefore the absolute statement that "no one" in the unit supported the stories indicates that Beauchamp himself also refused to confirm the stories, and therefore recanted.

CY 's post says, in essence, lots of militart folk have denied Beauchamp's allegations on the record. If you figure there is no chance the army would conduct a cover up of some really ugly behavior, then you are done. If you accept a possibility that the army would cover this all up, as Foer, in essence, is charging, you don't have a 100% certainty that Beauchamp's charges are without any basis.

If you ask my opinion, I think Mr. Beauchamp read a lot of anti-war books, and they ave more to do with what he wrote than anything going on in Iraq. If you ask what can be proven by what we have before us -- only that Beauchamp made a substantial misstatement in his writing. To draw a conclusion he is lying about everything is easy to do, but you will be doing it by inference.

My suspicion is that the army is giving TNR enough rope to hang itself and the sworn statement will appear at some timely moment. Brother Foer must be as nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rockers--he's really bet the farm on this one.

no chance the army would conduct a cover up of some really ugly behavior

This isn't the kind of stuff they would cover up, it's the kind of stuff they would discipline on the spot (or later but then the NCO in charge gets it even worse). That's why it wasn't very credible to begin with.

Stuff this bad and worse does happen and is dealt with. The lie was that this is widespread, common, and unpunished.

1. Nothing that Beauchamp has written is that extreme that anybody would give a rat's ass about covering up. Might as well cover up that soldiers like fart jokes.

Utterly beyond irrelevant.

2. No TNR does NOT have multiple sources because TNR has not identified any of them save one. And that one basically called Beauchamp a liar.

3. To my memory the US military doesn't hand out stuff like this because it doesn't rise to the level of trial. I.e. it's a minor matter that is restricted to the individuals involved and record in their personnel folder, but not publicized.

4. If TNR really wants to support their case better then all they have to do is get a **NEW** statement from Beauchamp that he stands by his writing.

*shrug* if you want to hitch yourself to the TNR's Titanic then go right ahead. Frankly it's a loser's game though.

And the contractor in Kuwait says flat out there was never such a wounded woman there--indeed, for liability purposes, anyone with such wounds would have been promptly shipped out of there.

I saw a comment from someone pointing out what very thin gruel you have once they start changing significant details of the story while simultaneously claiming that the details are insignificant. This commenter hypothesized that the "disfigured" woman in the chow hall was actually a fat woman that they made fun of.

So now we have something which is a) completely believable; (fat people get insulted all the time) and b) fits into TNR's evident standards as "true but for the most minor of details."

Another point that caught my attention the very first time I read about STB's story is that nowhere in any part of the story does STB give us any source for his assertion that the woman's injuries came from an IED attack. The description is far more consistent with being burned by acid, a popular form of violence against women in some South Asian countries.

we have several NAMED Army officers stating that Beaucouchump stories were determined false. TNR's fact checkers are unamed, and they are playing weasel by quoting one Lamb statement (I don't know about signed confession) and not the other (investigation determined stories are false)

The Army officially refused to confirm its existence, which would be odd, if they had one.

Sorry, Phil, but what you're highlighting here is your own ignorance of military matters. An investigation is assigned to an officer, who does whatever is necessary to ascertain the facts. He then writes up a report, which may in time be released, but not until it goes through an approval chain. This one apparently completed a week ago, and it's almost certainly not through the chain yet. The initial report is often used to draft a statement for the PAO to release, which has happened in this case. It doesn't mean the PAO has the finished report in front of him. The "Army" you quote is a single PAO officer, who said: "I have no knowledge of that." To claim that's the "Army officially refused" is hokum. Moreover, using that particular PAO officer to bolster the implication there's no recantation is problematic, since he also said:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

You're left overreading one of his statements and in complete denial on the other, which I'd hope is too much even for a lefty apologist to rationalize.

Moreover, the argument is typical shifting of the burden of proof to demand opponents prove an impossibility (i.e., that something didn't happen). The burden is always on the claimant, even more so when it's a news outlet claiming to've checked a story. Obviously they didn't, as they've already admitted a critical piece (coarsened soldiers mocking a burn victim) didn't happen in Iraq. At this point, no objective observer would accept anything from TNR's story without proof. If you happen to be one of the faith-based who just want to believe, fine. But don't pretend there's any logical underpinning, because there isn't.

Generally speaking, Americans are terribly naive and very gullible. When a celebrity embraces something, the sheep follow without ever engaging their brains. Logical thought goes out the window. And a sizable segment of this country has some romantic notion that a socialist government is somehow paradise. If you read the Opinion Journal piece I cited above on the John Kerry bunk, it is chilling to think how gullible so many were back in the Vietnam days. Those are the same people who today call America the bad guy and glorify life in Iraq under Saddam or see bin Laden's band of killers as freedom fighters. Kerry, Murtha, Levin, Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, TNR, NYT, etc. They really believe their own BS.

From the Opinion Journal piece:

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.

The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman--the leader of the new "occupation power." Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.

The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the "butcher of Hiroshima." We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering "shark" run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a "Yankees-Go-Home" petition, at the same time launching the slogan "Europe for the Europeans."

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America's commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O'Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a "deserter." And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, "Give Bush the Boot."

It's trope-a-dope time. Fortunately the new kids are so bad at agitprop that most people are snickering at them. If Andropov were still running things, Judis, Zengerle and Foer would be taking that long walk down a hallway in the basement of the Lubyanka.

They've got the "idiots" part down pat, it's the "useful" part that has them stumped.

Let me see if I got this right. Five guys from the unit, six if you include Beauchamp, successfully kept their stories straight in independent detailed interviews with the Army and did so well that the Army officer in charge, who is certainly aware of the controversy and therefore the increased spotlight on him and his thoroughness, is satisfied that he has the whole truth and closed the investigation. All the while they are just lying like rugs on a hardwood floor.

Most likely each of these guys is reminded about the penalties for lying to an investigator but no matter, they do it anyway cuz they really like that wacky Scott who managed to get the whole company confined to base if not other restrictions.

Let me see if I got this right. Five guys from the unit, six if you include Beauchamp, successfully kept their stories straight in independent detailed interviews with the Army and did so well that the Army officer in charge, who is certainly aware of the controversy and therefore the increased spotlight on him and his thoroughness, is satisfied that he has the whole truth and closed the investigation. All the while they are just lying like rugs on a hardwood floor.

Most likely each of these guys is reminded about the penalties for lying to an investigator but no matter, they do it anyway cuz they really like that wacky Scott who managed to get the whole company confined to base if not other restrictions.

The Army has stated that they conducted an investigation in Beauchamp's unit to determine the validity of the stories. Such a formal investigation would include taking sworn statements from anyone with information relevent to the investigation.

The Army has stated that no one in Beauchamp's unit could confirm the stories.

Beauchamp is a member of his own unit.

Beauchamp himself must not have confirmed that stories, otherwise the Army would not say catagorically that "no one" would confirm the stories.

Beauchamp must have personally recanted for the Army to be able to say "no one" in the unit would confirm the stories.

Therefore, the official Army statement indirectly confirms the anonymous report that Beauchamp recanted his story in a sworn statement. It does not completely confirm it, but it confirms the basic tenants of the anonymous claim. Beauchamp must have made a sworn statement as part of the investigation, and that sworn statement must have recanted his stories. The only thing not supported by the public Army statement is at what point in the investigation Beauchamp recanted.

"Scott Thomas" made two claims in his second article, "Dead of Night," that were flatly false:

That he saw a spent "square-backed" pistol cartridge. As a firearms "expert" who deals with literally dozens of different kinds of pistol, rifle, and shotgun ammunition on a near-daily basis, I flatly deny that such a thing exists. Please feel free to quote me on that.

Beauchamp claims that the "square-backed" cartridge was proof that the Iraqi Police were involved in the shooting, because "The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police." Someone should tell that to the New York Times, military press releases, video-sharing web sites and othermedia outlets that would have shown that Glocks are very common in Iraq.

Glocks are quite likely the most ubiquitous handgun in Iraq, carried officially or unofficially by those on all sides, and those on no side at all.

A simple Google search would have disproved both of these claims made in "Dead of Night" within seconds or minutes.

This strongly suggests that The New Republic did not even make a cursory attempt to fact-check "Dead of Night" before publication.

Contractor William "Big Country" Coughlin has been at Camp Arijan since February, and flatly denies seeing such a woman.

TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle admits to have received email from PAO Russo stating that this story was regarded as an urban legend or myth, but refuses to publish this contradictory account.

TNR has not named a single witness, of any type. This included not only the soldiers they granted anonymity, but the civilian personnel they said they spoke with at the company who manufactures the Bradley IFV (BAE Systems), who are presumably not subject to a military gag order. TNR would not even disclose the name of the manufacturer, much less who their experts were, or precisely what they said.

TNR has failed to cite or name the forensic experts they spoke with, reveal the questions they asked, or reveal their expert's responses.

TNR has failed to cite or name the current or former solders they spoke with, what their qualifications were, reveal the questions they asked, or reveal their expert's responses.

TNR has failed to cite or name the journalists they spoke with, explain why they are more qualified than TNR's own crack staff, reveal the questions they asked, or their expert's responses.

TNR has utterly failed to address the obvious fact errors in "Dark of Night" that seems to prove their lack of fact-checking prior to the publication of that article.

TNR has purposefully and willfully deceived their readers when they claimed "all of Beauchamp's essays were fact-checked before publication," as the various Glocks-in-Iraq-related links above abundantly prove beyond any shadow of a doubt.

TNR did not present conflicting accounts from Major Luedeke or Major Lamb denying Beauchamp's claims as "urban legends of myths" and as "false".

Someone please explain to me why we should have any faith at all in what Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and the other editors and reporters at The New Republic claim. They've proven they have not fact-checked articles they claim to have fact-checked prior to publication, they have not proved a single named credible source to support their charges, and they refuse to admit that their time-shifting, country-hopping "burned woman" claims have completely undermined the premise of the entire article.

I cannot think of a single reason that we should trust them, when all they seem to be trying to do is muddy the waters just enough that they might possibly escape with their careers intact.

Ranger, I agree with your logic, but I would caution that people often don't talk that precisely. How many times have you seen a press conference where somebody says something, a reporter asks, "did you really mean XXX?" and the person hastily exclaims, "oh, no, that's not what I meant."

Maybe the statement that none of the platoon members supported STB's allegations means that STB recanted. Maybe it was simply an imprecise statement, and it really means that everyone besides STB told investigators that nothing like what STB described happened. That's just how people talk... Especially if the person talking decided that the whole thing was just stupid anyway and was not expecting the statement to be so closely analyzed.

OT from Dan Riehl:
[quote]Update: According to video top right here, the Feds have moved to put a hold on the SC suspects as regards their immigration status, which means even if they do make bond they would be transferred to Federal Prison instead of being released. Also, even if cleared of any current charges, they could be deported depending on the outcome of that process. Also court documents specifically state "several pipe bombs" were in the trunk of their vehicle.

While the FBI has now seized home computers and Wal-Mart security tape in the investigation into Yousseff Samir Megahed and Ahmed Abda Mohamed h/t Rusty, it seems one as yet unidentified roommate left the country on Monday, after the investigation had begun. It's unclear if the FBI has been able to identify the individual, or if they even want to talk to him in the case. I suspect they may, as he seems pivotal given this latest report.

Ishtay, who rents a Temple Terrace house and works at Boston Market, said he met Mohamed and Megahed through a roommate. He said he didn't know the roommate's last name, but he was from Mauritania.

Another of Ishtay's roommates, Ghassan Salhab, 27, said the man from Mauritania moved here from Canada recently and returned there Monday.

Meanwhile, another spokesperson has emerged for the boys. M. Nachabe, who would appear to be Mahmood Nachabe. In perhaps an unfortunate coincidence, Nachabe has the distinction of being listed in the same Engineering College Faculty catalog as the now infamous Sami al-Arian.

"They know their son is innocent," said M. Nachabe, faculty adviser for student Mohamed, after speaking by telephone with the man's parents in Egypt.

Details around the boy's trip remain vague. Blogging archive on the case here.

It remained unclear Tuesday exactly why the men were in rural South Carolina or if they had a destination.

The author of the Opinion Journal piece is
Lt. Gen. Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. He speaks from first hand experience and is devastating on the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.

It seems as if the left have taken the Soviet KGB plan as its own and aim to:

That's a reasonable explanation but I believe that I would go with Ranger's analysis. My reasoning on the matter is purest speculation but I believe that the Army has been "running" this as counter agitprop since Pvt Dud's second piece was published. I base my speculation on Goldfarb's role in the matter. If TNR's response has been ludicrously wrong then it is balanced by Goldfarb being extraordinarily right.I won't speculate as to Goldfarb being willing in his role but it is a very curious matter that he has such extraordinary sources (the recant piece, in particular) among a group of less than 200 men (which just happens to include Pvt. Dud) out of the 160K currently in theater. Toss in the alacrity and depth of response from various PAOs to every blogger who has asked questions and I believe that the Army is executing a plan - and executing it exceptionally well, to boot.

I wonder if the group responsible (if there is one) calls themselves the Memekillers? Maybe Lt. Red can sign up for that duty.

I've been following this story from teh beginning and something just does not jive logistically for me.

How did TNR get these stories?

Was there an editor at TNR asking the staff if anyone there knew any soldiers in Iraq, and if yes, do they have any lurid tales to tell? Not likely. More likely the stories were shopped to TNR.

Did Elspeth Reeve go to her editors on behalf of her "wannabe writer" husband and say - "Hey - I've got some interesting Iraq stories?" "I know they are true because my husband is the author?"

Did STB send his wife daily e-mails? Did he lie to her about what he was up to? Did she read his daily missives and say - "Hey Baby - you are a damn good writer! You should send these to my editor at this e-mail-----?" Not likely. If his blog and myspace are any indication - he is a dumbass. Without much creative writing under his belt. Did she say - "Hey Baby, I think I should compile your e-mails into some Iraq stories, do you mind if I go to my editor with them?" I'm sure she knew where he was every step of the way. So she is complicit in the lies told by her husband. She knew he was not in Iraq - and allowed the stories to go to print.

Did STB go completely around his wife to get the stories published? Not likely. Seeing as how a TNR employee knew lots about the wife/soldier connection, and got fired for mentioning it.

No matter how I look at this - I keep getting the distinct impression that Elspeth Reeve wrote or ghost-wrote a portion of these stories. Some of the writing comes across as very girlish IMO. Written by a woman, not a man. If she was compiling his daily missives, it could explain why his writing seemed to be non-existant prior to these stories. And who was proofreading his drafts? Does he have any draft copies? Did he actually send perfect, spell-checked stories to TNR?

Maybe he readily recanted because he knew if an investigation went real deep - they would find out he never even wrote the stories. I think TNR knows a lot more than they are telling. I would dearly love to see what was captured in his laptop. And I think his wife should be held to account for her complicity.

That means the lie started immediately if the stories were shopped to TNR as IRAQ DIARIES. So Elspeth is the central player? She knew the stories were fakes, but shopped them anyway? Or she was lied to by STB and just naively went on her merry little way?

Seemingly, if Foer is as big a d--k as he seems, couldn't he just lay all the blame at her feet? And say "Hey I was had! These two lying swindlers are to blame!" Wouldn't that basically exhonerate TNR, Foer et al, and ruin the lives of two lying liars?

Hmmm. I can't put my finger on it. But she is in this up to her neck. But since they were recanted - looks like TNR is not going to divulge the timeline of author-story-editor-print.

Rick
If only the Army, or this Administration for that matter, was as cunning as that. Sometimes I wish Repubs in our gov't were as ruthless as the Dems with 'whistleblowing', leaks, shadow gov't, etc.. but they aren't.

The Army hasn't been running this as a counter agitprop op. That would make too much sense.
No, they'll just keep on being the punching bag and not respond in kind.